Governor’s Proposed Climate Change Revisions are Roadblock to State Budget Passage by April 1
ALBANY—The governor’s proposed changes to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) are one of a host of stubborn issues being debated by state lawmakers as they attempt to finalize a Fiscal Year 2027 state budget by the April 1st deadline.
The governor, citing rising utility costs and the high price tag of adhering to the CLCPA’s emission reduction deadlines, proposed in an Op-Ed on March 20 to amend the climate change law to provide the state more time to implement its requirements of 40% emissions reductions by 2030 and 85% reduction by 2050.
The governor stated in the Empire Report Op-Ed: “We need more time, and so I am proposing we amend the law to require regulations to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to be issued at the end of 2030. We are seeking to change what emission limits the regulations are tied to—including a new 2040 target as well as the existing 2050 statewide emission limits. Nothing else in the CLCPA is changing regarding the existing statewide emission limit targets and these new regulations would still require the state to make timely progress, ensuring long-term policy stability.” She also called for accounting changes that if not enacted, “will ensure our failure despite all of our efforts and billions of dollars spent.”
She blamed federal government policies and supply chain disruptions post-COVID as some of the factors in her decision to revise the CLCPA. She also noted a recent study by New York State Energy Research and Development Authority which found the impact of meeting the Climate Act’s 2030 targets would be more than $4,000 a year for upstate oil and natural gas households, and $2,300 more for New York City natural gas households.
Reaction to the governor’s CLCPA changes was mixed, with the business community offering support, while environmentalists have blasted her stance.
The Business Council of New York State in a prepared statement said: “We support the Governor’s proposals to adjust the CLCPA’s emission reduction and accounting provisions. These are reasonable and necessary corrections that will avoid onerous and costly mandates based on impractical emission-reduction targets. Extending the CLCPA’s regulatory timeline and adopting conventional greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting standards are sensible steps toward ensuring the law is workable and affordable for households and businesses alike. A measured, evidence-based approach to addressing GHG reductions allows the state to protect affordability and reliability while continuing to make meaningful climate progress. Importantly, these necessary amendments do not affect the state’s investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy storage.”
The Business Council of Westchester applauded Gov. Hochul “for her pragmatism in recognizing the CLCPA’s current shortcomings.” In a prepared statement, the Business Council of Westchester stated that by adopting an all-the-above energy strategy, “the governor is taking the necessary steps to align climate goals with economic reality.”
The Environmental Defense Fund was one of a number of environmental organizations that came out against any CLCPA changes. “With this proposal, Gov. Hochul is backing down at a time when it couldn’t be more critical to protect New Yorkers from energy price spikes driven by fossil fuels, unpredictable extreme weather and pollution that harms our health,” said Kate Courtin, Senior Manager for State Climate Policy & Strategy at Environmental Defense Fund. “Kicking the can further down the road doesn’t help New Yorkers. It is far past time for New York to move forward with a cap-and-invest program that cuts climate and air pollution, helps shield families from rising energy bills and creates good-paying jobs. Right now, residents in other states are benefitting from their cap-and-invest programs, and New Yorkers deserve the same.”
Among the other key issues being debated in Albany include: closing New York City’s more than $5-billion budget gap by possibly increasing tax obligations on the wealthy as well as SEQRA and auto insurance reform.
